Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Saraswathi Swetha Educational Trust, ... vs Assessee on 31 January, 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'D' BENCH, CHENNAI
BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 495/Mds/2011
M/s Saraswathi Swetha
Educational Trust, The Director of Income Tax
No.1, Mahalingam Chetty St., v. (Exemptions),
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.
Chennai - 600 034.
PAN : AAKTS1757L
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri R. Padmanabhan, CA
Respondent by : Shri K.E.B. Rengarajan,
Junior Standing Counsel
Date of Hearing : 31.01.2012
Date of Pronouncement : 09.02.2012
O R D E R
PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
In this appeal filed by the assessee, it assails an order dated 26.11.2010 of Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai, denying it registration under Section 12AA and approval under Section 80G of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
2. Short facts apropos are that assessee had filed applications on 3.5.2010 for registration under Section 12AA and for approval under 2 I.T.A. No. 495/Mds/2011 Section 80G of the Act. Certain clarifications were required, which were furnished. After verifying the records produced by the assessee, DIT(E) was of the opinion that the Trust had not started any significant activity. Therefore, according to him, genuineness of the activities could not be verified and conditions required for registration under Section 12AA of the Act were not satisfied. He, therefore, rejected both the applications for registration under Section 12AA as well as for approval under Section 80G of the Act.
3. Now before us, learned A.R. submitted that the objects were of purely charitable and denial of registration under Section 12AA as also approval under Section 80G of the Act was unjustified. Just because activities did not commence, the required registration and approval ought not have been denied.
4. Per contra, learned D.R. strongly supported the order of ld.
DIT(E) and submitted that before starting its activities, an assessee could not claim as a matter of right, registration under Section 12AA or an approval under Section 80G of the Act.
5. In reply, learned A.R., relying on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DIT(E) v. Meenakshi Amma Endowment Trust (2011) 50 DTR (Kar) 243, submitted that activities 3 I.T.A. No. 495/Mds/2011 of the Trust would be relevant only if registration was sought long after the formation of the Trust.
6. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions.
Assessee-Trust was found by a Deed of Trust dated 3rd May, 2010. It had applied for registration under Section 12AA and for approval under Section 80G of the Act on 3.5.2010 itself. In other words, the applications were made to the DIT(E) on the very same day when Trust Deed was declared. There is nothing in the Act which prevents an assessee from making applications for registration under Section 12AA and for approval under Section 80G of the Act immediately on its formation. In the case of Meenakshi Amma Endowment Trust (supra), Hon'ble Karnataka High Court clearly held that activities of the Trust had to be considered only if registration was sought long after the formation of the Trust. In the said case, the Trust was found on 23rd January, 2008 with a contribution of ` 1000/- by each of the trustees and it had sought registration with DIT(E) on 31st October, 2008. Their Lordship held that in such a situation, it could not be expected that the Trust would carry out any charitable activity during the short span of nine months and for this reason, the concerned authority could not come to a conclusion that the Trust was not intending to do any charitable activity. Here, in the given case before 4 I.T.A. No. 495/Mds/2011 us also, the DIT(E) has not disputed the charitable nature of the objects of the Trust. In the light of the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case Meenakshi Amma Endowment Trust (supra), we are of the opinion that the assessee was eligible for registration under Section 12AA as well as for approval under Section 80G of the Act.
7. In fact, the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in a decision dated 19.10.2011 to which one of us was a party (M/s M.L. Meyyappan Charitable Trust v. DIT(E) in I.T.A. Nos. 2073 & 2074/Mds/2010), on a similar fact situation, held as under at paras 7 to 23 of the order:-
"7. After cogitating the rival stands, we find that it is very important and subtle issue which needs careful adjudication. There is no denial of the legal position that the DIT(E) has to satisfy himself regarding the charitable nature of the objects, and also to judge the genuineness of the activities of the Trust if these are being carried on in furtherance of its objects or not. For that purpose, he may call for such documents/information from the Trust or institution, as he thinks necessary. In order to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activities of the Trust (or institution) he may also make such enquiries as he may deem necessary in this regard. He has to satisfy himself about the objects of the Trust or institution and the genuineness of its activities and only thereafter he has to take his decision either to grant or refuse registration. In such a scenario it becomes imperative to examine this legal tangle very minutely. The DIT(E) has, in a way, come to the conclusion that in case the Trust has not commenced its activities, the genuineness of its activities with respect to its objects cannot be examined and consequently the Trust cannot be registered u/s 12AA. Hence, he has laid down a legal 5 I.T.A. No. 495/Mds/2011 position that a 'Trust' (or institution) can be registered under the Act only after it has started its activities; or to put it in other words that no Trust (or institution) can be registered u/s 12AA before it starts its activities. A Trust can apply for registration only after it has done sufficient activities. That is why we have examined this issue in detail. It is not that this issue has arisen for the first time, rater it has arisen in past in many forms and facets. The Courts/Tribunal has discussed and decided the same in umpteen cases. We are analyzing them in the following paragraphs.
8. Almost similar issue was decided by the Co-ordinate Bench, in which one of us [JM] was in the Bench. In the case of Women Development & Educational Trust (WET) vs CIT in I.T.A.No. 227/Mds/2009, order dated 9.10.2009, the Tribunal has taken a view that carrying on of activities by the Trust is not a pre-condition for grant of such registration. Para 4 of this order is very categorical, and is being extracted for ready reference:
"4. We have gone through the supplementary trust deed and are satisfied that the objects of the trust are only charitable in nature. It is trite that at the time of granting registration u/s 12AA of the Act, the activities carried out in the past or application of funds of the trust are not at all relevant factors in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of New Life in Evangelistic Association vs CIT, 246 ITR 532. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT and remit the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the issue of registration u/s 12AA of only after examining the objects of the trust."
From the reading of the above, it becomes clear that application of funds of the Trust or institution, or carrying on its activities is not relevant at the time of grant or refusal of registration u/s 12AA of the Act.
6 I.T.A. No. 495/Mds/20119. While deciding the case of Ramajunam Memorial Trust vs CIT, in I.T.A.No. 340/Mds/2009, order dated 24.7.2009, another Co- ordinate Bench has taken a similar view. Para 5 of this order is relevant and is being extracted herein below in toto:
"After hearing both sides, we are of the considered opinion that in so far as the main objects of the trust are concerned, these are definitely charitable in nature. The ld. CIT has even not disputed that fact. As far as alleged activity of collecting fees from the parents of the students and thereafter donating the same to run a school which was in distress, cannot be treated as an uncharitable activity. The ld. CIT has stretched the truthful submissions put forth on behalf of the trust too far to conclude that the trust was not pursuing charitable activities. The legal position with regard to the detrimant factors which are relevant at the stage of granting or refusing registration u/s 12AA is by and large settled that at this stage only the objects of the trust are to be looked into and not the application of funds. The ld. CIT has not doubted the objects of the trust and only on the basis of application of the funds of the trust he has come to the conclusion that the activities carried on by the trust are not genuinely charitable. We differ from his finding and conclude that the activities of helping the cause of education is definitely a charitable activity and once there is no dispute about the genuineness of the activities of the trust, the ld. CIT cannot take shelter of any irrelevant reasoning for refusing registration as he cannot look into the application of funds at the time of dealing with the subject of registration u/s 12AA of the Act. In this regard, support can be drawn from the decision in the case of Shri Haridevji Gaushala Trust vs CIT, (2008) 119 TTJ (Agra) 981 [or (2008) 24 SOT 14], a copy of which was filed by ld. AR and in deciding that case one of us (JM) was a party. It has been categorically held in that case that application of income at the stage of Section 12AA is not relevant till its objects are charitable. The ld. CIT has not made 7 I.T.A. No. 495/Mds/2011 out the case of refusal of registration and in view of these facts of the case, keeping in view the objects of the trust, the assessee-trust is entitled to registration u/s 12AA. Accordingly, we direct the ld. CIT to grant registration to the assessee-trust as per law.
In the above decision also one of us [JM] was a party. The above finding is categorical on the issue and it would be not out of place to mention that the decision was taken after the amended provisions.
10. Likewise, similar view was taken by both of us, while deciding the case of Jerome Educational Trust vs The Addl. CIT, in I.T.A.No. 1265/Mds/08, order dated 7.12.2009, of which para 3 is relevant and is being extracted herein below:
"3. On merits, it was found that the ld. CIT has not passed a speaking order, therefore, the entire matter is restored back to his file with the direction that at the time of grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, application of the funds and the activities carried on by the assessee-trust are not relevant for consideration and at that stage only the objects have to be examined whether these are charitable in nature or not. Hence, we restore the entire issue to the file of the ld. CIT for taking a fresh decision after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. "
In the above decision, it has been clearly held that application of funds and carrying on of activities by Trust are not relevant at the stage of considering the application for registration u/s 12AA.
11. Similar view has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench, in which one of us [Hon'ble AM] was a party while deciding the case of M/s Rehoboth Educational Charitable Trust vs ITO in I.T.A.Nos.2037 & 2038/Mds/2010, vide order dated 9.6.2011. Paragraph 5 of this order is relevant and is being extracted herein below:
"We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. Ld. CIT had refused granting registration to the assessee-Trust under Section 12AA of the Act and approval sought under Section 80G of the Act, holding 8 I.T.A. No. 495/Mds/2011 that an application earlier filed by the assessee was rejected and the new application filed by the assessee did not rectify the deficiencies mentioned in the earlier order refusing the registration. No doubt, an assessee has to establish its genuineness and a CIT vide sub-section (1) of Section 12AA is empowered to call for documents and information from Trust so as to prove the genuineness of its activities. Nevertheless, we find that assessee's applications were rejected for a sole reason that it could not establish with documentary evidence its charitable activities. There is no finding by the CIT that objects of the assessee-Trust were non- charitable in nature. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter requires re-visit by the CIT. We, therefore, set aside the orders of ld. CIT refusing registration under Section 12AA and refusing approval under Section 80G of the Act and remit the issues back to his file for disposal de novo. Assessee has to co- operate and furnish the documents called for by ld. CIT and prove genuineness of its activities. Ld. CIT shall pass orders in accordance with law."
The very reading of the above paragraph makes it clear that in a way starting of activities by Trust is not relevant for deciding the impugned issue.
12. Similar view has been taken by another Co-ordinate Bench (constituted by Shri N.S.Naini, Hon'ble AM and Shri George Mathan, Hon'ble JM) in the case of Adhyapana Trust vs ITO, in I.T.A.Nos.1575 & 1576/Mds/2010, vide order dated 21.7.2011. Para 7 of this order is relevant and the same is being extracted verbatim, as under :-
"We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. In the instant case, we find that for a person being a trustee of a charitable trust, it is not necessary that such person should be financially well off or should possess certain professional qualifications. We further find that the ld. CIT has not doubted about the 9 I.T.A. No. 495/Mds/2011 genuineness of or identity of any of the trustees. In our considered opinion, the capacity or the competence of the trustee is a matter of discretion of the settler and willingness of the trustee and it is not for the Revenue to prescribe as to who is competent to run or manage the charitable trust or not. Further, we also observe that the ld. CIT could not point out any object contained in the trust deed of the assessee trust which was not charitable in nature. Merely because there were several objects of a trust and that the several objects were not inter- connected with each other does not mean that either the objects were not charitable or the assessee was not a charitable trust. There is no prohibition for a charitable trust to carry out different charitable activities even when such different activities are not interconnected with each other. We further find that the ld. CIT has not found either from the activity report or the accounts of the assessee that any fund was utilized for any non charitable activity or purpose. Further we find that the ld. CIT could not bring any material on record to show that the fund or income of the trust was utilized for personal purposes of a settler or trustee or any other private person. In respect of his observation regarding non utilization of fund for any purpose, in our considered opinion, this is a matter which is to be looked into by the Assessing Officer at the time of making assessment and if the Assessing Officer finds that any amount less than 85% of the income of the trust has been applied for charitable purposes, then the Assessing Officer has to assess the same as per law and for that purpose registration u/s 12AA cannot be denied to the assessee. In view of the above discussion, in our considered opinion, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable. We further observe that the assessee trust is not filed before us copy of trust deed, activity report and accounts of the trust. In the absence of complete material before us, we have no option but to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT for adjudicating afresh in light of the discussion made 10 I.T.A. No. 495/Mds/2011 hereinbefore after allowing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee as per law."
13. From the above finding, it becomes manifest that although the CIT has power to examine the activities of the Trust, but he can examine the activities only if the activities have been started so that he can satisfy himself about the genuineness of its objects, since the Assessing Officer has to look into these aspects while making regular assessment. In case we uphold the view that registration u/s 12AA of the Act has to be granted only after examining the activities of the Trust, then in that case once a Trust is registered u/s 12AA, its activities cannot be again looked into at the time of regular assessment, and the certificate for registration would be enough to claim benefits of Sections 11, 12 & 13, etc. But this is actually not a correct preposition as the Assessing Officer has to examine the entire facts relating to the activities of the Trust which were carried out in a given relevant year, to come to a conclusion if it is eligible for this exemption or not.
14. While deciding similar issue another Co-ordinate Bench (in which one of us [JM] was in the Bench alongwith Shri B. Ramakotaiah, Hon'ble AM) in the case of JITO Chennai Chapter vs Ward Asstt. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) in 1468 & 1469/Mds/2010, order dated 8.2.2011, has taken a similar view. Paragraph 4 of this order is relevant and is being extracted herein below:
"From the reading of section 12AA, we note that the only duty of the CIT was to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activities of the Trust. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of New Life in Christ Evangelistic Association vs CIT and Another (2000) 246 ITR 532(Mad) has held that at the stage of grant of certificate under section 12A of the Act, the only enquiry which could possibly be made would be whether the Society has actually made an application in time and whether the accounts of the society are maintained in the manner as suggested by the said section and beyond that the scope of enquiry would not go. Even though it is rendered under section 12A when procedural section 12AA was not available in the statute book, we feel that the ratio is equally 11 I.T.A. No. 495/Mds/2011 applicable even after insertion of section 12AA also because it is only a procedural section. In our view, CIT has gone into unnecessary details instead of looking into the genuineness of the activities of the Trust with reference to documents called for by him.
In other words, the DIT(E) has gone astray from the norms specified in section 12AA. In this view of the matter, we direct DIT(E) to grant registration under section 12AA and approval under section 80G of the Act to the assessee-Trust."
15. The Co-ordinate Bench has clearly held that the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of New Life in Christ Evangelistic Association vs CIT & Another, (supra), in which it has been held that at the stage of grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act, the only enquiry which can possibly be made would be whether the Society has actually made an application in time and whether the accounts of the Society are maintained in the manner as suggested by this section. Beyond that the scope of enquiry would not go. The Bench has further held that even though decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court was rendered u/s 12A when procedural section 12AA was not available in the statute book yet the ratio decidendi of Hon'ble Madras High Court(supra) would equally apply even after insertion of section 12AA because it is only a procedural section.
16. Another decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench is in the case of Madurayelerukkum Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Maruthuvamanai vs ITO, in I.T.A.No. 1623/Mds/2010, order dated 10.10.2010, in which one of us [JM] was a party. In similar circumstances, this very issue has been clearly churned while passing the order. Paragraph 4 of this order is relevant and is being extracted herein below, verbatim:
"It is noted that the assessee had complied with the directions of the ld. CIT and has also produced the books of account pertaining to financial year 2008-09. The ld. CIT has also perused the cash book, ledger, vouchers etc. which were produced before him. The assessee has also furnished copy of the documents filed before the Registrar of Companies as directed by the ld. CIT. Copy of the auditors reports for the years ending 12 I.T.A. No. 495/Mds/2011 31.3.2007, 31.3.2008 and 31.3.2009 are also placed before us for our perusal. We have perused all these documents. It is true that the ld. CIT has got the power to examine the objects of the assessee-society for registration purposes, but the overwhelming judicial pronouncement is that if the objects as mentioned in the Memorandum of Association of a society or trust is found to be charitable in nature, registration u/s 12AA should invariably be granted and the application of funds and the activities carried on by it has to be examined at the time of making of assessment order for a particular assessment year. The ld. CIT has fairly conceded that the objects of the society are charitable in nature, but the charitable activity could not be exhibited on record. We are of the considered opinion that when the objects of the assessee-society are charitable in nature, the society must be granted registration u/s 12AA of the Act. But when the assessments are considered, the aspect of the relevant provisions allowing exemption from tax, may be deeply scrutinized and considered into. Consequently, we order the ld. CIT to grant registration u/s 12AA to the assessee-society."
17. In this given case also, the objects of the Trust are found to be 'charitable' in nature still the registration has been refused only because the Trust has not started its activities which, according to the above decisions, is not necessary at the time of consideration of application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act.
18. Similar view was taken by another Co-ordinate Bench while deciding the case of Dr.Soundaram Trust vs ITO in I.T.A.No. 1551/Mds/2009, order dated 17.2.2010. There are plethora of similar decisions which have been taken by Co-ordinate Benches not only in Chennai but throughout the country.
19. Now the question arises as to whether there is any decision available on this issue of any High Court which may have been rendered after the incorporation of the provision of section 12AA on the statute book. The answer to this question is YES. There is one decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Director of income Tax(Exemptions) vs Meenakshi Amma Endowment 13 I.T.A. No. 495/Mds/2011 Trust, (2011) 50 DTR (Kar) 243, which is directly on this issue. We may mention that a decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is also available which applies, mutatis mutandis, even after incorporation of procedural provision of section 12AA and the Co- ordinate Benches have followed the same as discussed above. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, while deciding the above case has very succinctly examined this issue in the following words:
"The trust was formed on 23rd Jan., 2008, and within a period of nine months they had filed an application under s. 12A for issuance of the registration claiming exemption. The fact that the corpus of the trust is nothing but the contribution of ` 1,000 by each of the trustees as corpus fund goes to show that the trustees were contributing the funds by themselves in a humble way and were intending to commence charitable activities. It is not even the case of the Revenue that by the time the application of the assessee came to be considered by them, the assessee had collected lots of donations for the activities of the trust. On the other hand the grievance of the concerned authorities seems to be that there was no activity which could be termed as charitable as per the details furnished by the assessee, therefore, such registration could not be granted. When the trust itself was formed in January 2008 with the money available with the trust, one cannot expect them to do activity of charity immediately and because of that situation the authority cannot come to a conclusion that trust was not intending to do any activity of charity. In such a situation the objects of the trust have to be taken into consideration by the authority and the objects of the trust could be read from the trust deed itself. In the subsequent returns filed by the trust, if the Revenue comes across that factually trust has not conducted any charitable activities, it is always open to the authorities concerned to withdraw the registration already 14 I.T.A. No. 495/Mds/2011 granted or cancel the said registration under s. 12AA(3). A trust could be formed today and within a week registration under s. 12A could be sought as there is no prohibition under the Act seeking such registration. The activities of the trust have to be considered if such registration is sought much later than the formation of the trust or after expiry of the earlier registration granted in favour of the trust. Therefore in a case of this nature where the trust has approached the authority for registration under s. 12A within a span of eight months of its formation, the above- mentioned criteria namely, the objects of the trust for which it was formed will have to be examined to be satisfied about its genuineness and activities of the trust cannot be the criterion, since it is yet to commence its activities. The conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is just and there is no substantial question that could be gone into in the present appeal. "
20. It is very clear from the reading of the above finding that in the case decided by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the Trust was formed on 23.1.2008 and it sought registration u/s 12A of the Act on 31.10.2008 i.e after 8 months approximately, but the DIT(E) refused to grant registration on the ground that the assessee had not yet commenced any activities. The Hon'ble High Court, after discussing various angles of the issue, has finally decided that in such a situation the objects of the Trust have to be taken into consideration by the authority and activities of the Trust have to be considered if such registration is sought long after formation of the Trust or after the expiry of the earlier registration.
21. The above decision squarely applies to the facts of the given case. In this case, the Trust was constituted by a Trust-deed on 27.11.2009 and it filed application in Form 10A on 8.2.2010, for registration u/s 12AA. The application for registration in the given case was filed only after around two months whereas in the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, application for registration was filed after eight months of formation of the Trust.
15 I.T.A. No. 495/Mds/2011In that case also the registration was refused because the assessee had not started its charitable activities although objects of the Trust were found to be 'charitable' in nature. In the given case, the objects of the Trust are found to be verily charitable in nature, but only because it has not started/commenced its activities, the registration was refused.
22. In such a case, the question arises as to whether a decision of another High Court, not being directly of the Jurisdictional High Court, albeit in this case, the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is available by implication, which has been followed by us in the case of JITO Chennai Chapter as discussed above, is a binding precedent or not. It has been well accepted that though legally, judgment of another High Court is not a binding precedent yet a decision of another High Court should be followed. It is also a well settled dictum of law now. When there is no contrary decision, a decision of another High Court has to be followed by the Tribunal. The income-tax is a Central Act and therefore, the Tribunal should follow the decision of another High Court. It was held in the case of CIT vs Highway Construction Co. P. Ltd, 237 ITR 234(Gauhati) wherein the High Court has held that when there is a decision of different High Court and there is no contrary decision, it will be just and proper for the Tribunal to follow the said decision. In this case also a direct decision of Karnataka High Court is available. In fact, there is a decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court but if it is not treated being directly on the issue [being rendered u/s 12A only] the only decision on this issue is that of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court (supra) which is directly applicable on this issue. Likewise, a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench has a binding effect and the Co-ordinate Benches are bound to follow the view expressed by the another Bench of the Tribunal unless the earlier view was rendered per incuriam. The Hon'ble Madras High Court has reiterated this legal position while deciding the case of CIT vs L.G.Ramamurthi & Others, 110 ITR 453, inter alia. Accordingly, the legal position on the issue becomes crystallized that at the time of consideration of registration, it is not a sine qua non that the Trust must have started its activities. In case the Trust has started its activities, the ld. CIT can examine them as has been envisaged in the Act. This above conclusion is safeguarded by sub-clause(3) incorporated in section 12AA vide which if after granting registration it is found by the ld. CIT that the activities of the Trust are not carried out in furtherance of its charitable objects, 16 I.T.A. No. 495/Mds/2011 he can cancel the registration granted to the Trust. So, when these provisions are read in conjunction, and a harmonious interpretation is given to them, we find that the view taken by the Co- ordinate Benches in numerous successive cases, some of which we have mentioned herein above, is very logical, and the same we are bound to follow.
23. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the order of ld. DIT(E) in refusing to grant registration and consequent refusal to grant approval u/s 80G of the Act. No fruitful purpose will be served by restoring the issue to the file of ld. DIT(E). Consequently, we set aside the finding of the DIT(E) and direct him to grant registration u/s 12AA and also to grant approval u/s 80G to the assessee-Trust."
8. We, therefore, have no hesitation to quash the order of ld.
DIT(E) and direct him to grant the registration and approval sought by the assessee.
9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.
The order was pronounced in the Court on 9th February, 2012.
sd/- sd/-
(George Mathan) (Abraham P. George)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Chennai,
Dated the 9th February, 2012.
Kri.
Copy to: (1) Appellant
(2) Respondent
(3) DIT(E), Chennai
(4) D.R.
(5) Guard file